A lessee at 931 Haverford Road, also home to Main Line Health and Fitness, Premier applied for a variance to erect one 29-square-foot and one 33-square-foot wall sign on the building, advertising both Premier and Main Line Health and Fitness. Zoning regulations allow only one 15-square-foot sign in this O-1 Office District.

Premier later agreed to reduce the signs to 16 square feet each. The zoning board approved the variance by a 3-2 vote. The decision requires that any lighting for the signs must point downward, while no additional signage can be placed on the building. An existing monument sign on Haverford Road will not be affected.

Commissioner Jeff Heilmann, who opposed the variance, asked that Byrne file an appeal to the decision in Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Byrne said he would review the record when it becomes available and advise the board on a future course of action. However, there is a 30-day limit on filing appeals.

"If we don't file now we won't be able to," said Heilmann.

Commissioners voted 7-1 in favor, with Stephen D'Emilio dissenting and Larry Holmes not in attendance.

When contacted last week, Heilmann maintained there was no reason for the zoning board to approve the variance. "They (Premier) have shown no hardship," he said. "It's a really bad decision. It's wrong. This was a favor that was done."

Additionally, Heilmann expressed concerns about the decision setting a precedent for other office buildings in the vicinity to erect larger signs.

During a recent public forum Lyn Elliot, a resident who spoke at the zoning hearing, voiced similar concerns regarding alleged failure to show hardship and a "new normal" the decision would create.

Elliot also objected to increased commercialization and a detrimental impact on the neighborhood, as well as traffic safety hazards. She compared the issue to the township's billboard battles.

"I think it ought to be looked at again," she said.

Zoning Board Solicitor William Malone said in an email: "The township is a party to the application and certainly has standing to appeal, should they so desire."

"To date, I have not been provided with a copy of any such appeal and/or the basis. Accordingly, I cannot comment on any perceived fault with the zoning board's decision.

"However, I will note that I have had the privilege of representing this zoning board for many years and know that in this case, as in every one they decide, they carefully examined all the evidence presented and did their very best to evaluate the evidence and balance conflicting interests in the matter."